Industry Effects
The Apple vs. Samsung case is a lawsuit that has brought much controversy to the world of technology. This case has brought both downsides and benefits to the technology market and could either lead to a halt in innovation, or it could produce a variety of new technologies that would help push the industry forward. Only time will tell whether or not Samsung’s opinion, that the verdict will lead to a loss for the American consumer, will hold true.
One thing that consumers will start to see in the short run, according to IDC Analyst Al Hilwa, is an Apple tax. This will cause Apple devices to relatively stay the same price but rival devices to such as phones, tablets, etc to become more expensive. The reason behind this is because rival device makers will have to pay Apple for using their designs that have become so popular on most smartphones and tablets we see today. When and where consumers will see this tax is unknown, said Hilwa. We may see more expensive devices or we may pay more to our carriers who may “swallow up the extra cost”. However, in the end “I think the consumer will pay more.” (Ante, Wall Street Journal)
Although this case could have its downsides, Apple holding these patents could produce more innovative features for mobile devices. Just as Samsung has found out, Apple will take action on anything that may infringe on their patents. According to “The Atlantic Magazine”, Samsung and other rivals could look in different directions when creating mobile devices producing a wider variety of devices for consumers to choose from. Google’s “Glasses” would be a perfect example of this because it is a mobile device that serves the same purpose as the Apple iPhone, but it isn’t physically the same concept as mobile devices today. Manufactures that introduce these products into the industry might not see a big return at first, but if/when they are introduced and as consumers adjust to new technologies, we could start see a major shift in the devices that we use on a daily basis. However at the same time, the idea of innovation is easier than actually doing it, which could leave Apple as the leading mobile device manufacturer for ages to come (Madrigal, The Atlantic).
The design of devices is the same concept as the future for technology. This case could either help push rivals forward or could simply hold them back when it comes to design in software. This concept of mobile devices has left a lot of controversial issues that many people are unhappy about. For example, Apples patented feature called “Pinch to Zoom” is a feature that has done just this. Today when we look at a mobile device with a touch screen, this is one of the many features that consumers look for to make browsing easier. Bill Flora, a creative director at Tectonic says that this decision will essentially create a “minefield” for designers and they will constantly second guessing themselves in fear of infringing on someone’s patent. He goes on to talk about the “pinch to zoom” function and makes a compelling statement. “The thought of a touch screen device without it almost makes it pointless. Like cars with triangular steering wheels. It just doesn’t make sense.” This feature is “very much like a circular steering wheel. “ With this said design features will become more challenging for companies like Samsung to come up with. There are a lot of functionality features that Apple has licensed now that are considered necessities when it comes to mobile devices. However, if and when new designs are developed, consumers will start to see a new era to mobile technology and design (Madrigal, The Atlantic).
As stated briefly before, Apple winning this case over patents could hinder innovation for rival manufactures and essentially be seen as the bully in the industry. With Apple owning the patents and rights to the most popular features for devices, they have all the power. This means that Apple is able to choose whether they want to hand out licenses to other manufacturers that want to use their designs. According to the Wall Street Journal, Apple executives stated during the trial that the company was “willing to license some patents to Samsung”; they also stated that the patents they held were a part of Apples “unique user experience. With this said, it seems that Apple holds all the cards and controls the future of software, so in a sense, they could be considered a monopoly. However, it’s up to companies like Samsung to respond to Apple’s “bullying” technique and develop new unique features that won’t infringe on Apple’s patents. As a result of this case, software in the short run will harder to develop, but over the long run, competitors will be forced to develop new ways (Ante, Wall Street Journal).
The Apple v. Samsung case opens up the question about whether the proliferation of software patents helps or hinders the industry. Experts can be divided, offering contrasting views. On August 26th 2012, after the verdict, Nick Wingfield wrote about the arguments that overly broad patents can easily monopolize the market. One of Samsung’s defense claims was that “many of Apple’s patents were invalid because of earlier technologies that either looked or operated similarly to Apple’s products.” Bill Flora, a director at a design firm in Seattle called Tectonic, stated that the verdict “could also create a “minefield” for product designers, in which they are constantly second-guessing whether functions.” Due to basic economic principles, less competition would lead to less innovation and higher prices. People can abuse the system by patenting simple programs that, without extreme innovation, are vital to operations and further innovation. An example of this would be the “windows” function of programs, as mentioned earlier (Wingfield, 26 August 2012, NYT).
Oppositely, an August 19, 2012 article about the Apple vs. Samsung case by Nick Wingfield (written before the verdict) postulated that there were legal “incentives” to avoid litigation (such as court fees, punitive damages, and bad publicity) which would usher in a “new era” for utility patent development. The author believes that “if Apple prevails, experts believe Samsung and other rivals in the market will have a much stronger incentive to distinguish their smartphone and tablet products with unique features and designs to avoid further legal tangles.” One particular piece of evidence used in the trial was an internal memo from 2010 that stated “the iPhone set off a “crisis of design” at Samsung, J. K. Shin, Samsung’s president of mobile communications.” Samsung felt the pressure to copy, gave in to using the patents, and lost the suit. Other companies possibly felt the same pressure, but due to neither them never following through with infringement nor being investigated, it would be difficult to discover competing company’s real intentions. These threats will inevitably force people to innovate in order to avoid litigation and all associated costs. Otherwise, if a company fails to innovate and has no viable products that do not infringe upon others’ patents, the company loses money and ultimately fails to thrive (Wingfield, 19 August 2012, NYT).
One thing that consumers will start to see in the short run, according to IDC Analyst Al Hilwa, is an Apple tax. This will cause Apple devices to relatively stay the same price but rival devices to such as phones, tablets, etc to become more expensive. The reason behind this is because rival device makers will have to pay Apple for using their designs that have become so popular on most smartphones and tablets we see today. When and where consumers will see this tax is unknown, said Hilwa. We may see more expensive devices or we may pay more to our carriers who may “swallow up the extra cost”. However, in the end “I think the consumer will pay more.” (Ante, Wall Street Journal)
Although this case could have its downsides, Apple holding these patents could produce more innovative features for mobile devices. Just as Samsung has found out, Apple will take action on anything that may infringe on their patents. According to “The Atlantic Magazine”, Samsung and other rivals could look in different directions when creating mobile devices producing a wider variety of devices for consumers to choose from. Google’s “Glasses” would be a perfect example of this because it is a mobile device that serves the same purpose as the Apple iPhone, but it isn’t physically the same concept as mobile devices today. Manufactures that introduce these products into the industry might not see a big return at first, but if/when they are introduced and as consumers adjust to new technologies, we could start see a major shift in the devices that we use on a daily basis. However at the same time, the idea of innovation is easier than actually doing it, which could leave Apple as the leading mobile device manufacturer for ages to come (Madrigal, The Atlantic).
The design of devices is the same concept as the future for technology. This case could either help push rivals forward or could simply hold them back when it comes to design in software. This concept of mobile devices has left a lot of controversial issues that many people are unhappy about. For example, Apples patented feature called “Pinch to Zoom” is a feature that has done just this. Today when we look at a mobile device with a touch screen, this is one of the many features that consumers look for to make browsing easier. Bill Flora, a creative director at Tectonic says that this decision will essentially create a “minefield” for designers and they will constantly second guessing themselves in fear of infringing on someone’s patent. He goes on to talk about the “pinch to zoom” function and makes a compelling statement. “The thought of a touch screen device without it almost makes it pointless. Like cars with triangular steering wheels. It just doesn’t make sense.” This feature is “very much like a circular steering wheel. “ With this said design features will become more challenging for companies like Samsung to come up with. There are a lot of functionality features that Apple has licensed now that are considered necessities when it comes to mobile devices. However, if and when new designs are developed, consumers will start to see a new era to mobile technology and design (Madrigal, The Atlantic).
As stated briefly before, Apple winning this case over patents could hinder innovation for rival manufactures and essentially be seen as the bully in the industry. With Apple owning the patents and rights to the most popular features for devices, they have all the power. This means that Apple is able to choose whether they want to hand out licenses to other manufacturers that want to use their designs. According to the Wall Street Journal, Apple executives stated during the trial that the company was “willing to license some patents to Samsung”; they also stated that the patents they held were a part of Apples “unique user experience. With this said, it seems that Apple holds all the cards and controls the future of software, so in a sense, they could be considered a monopoly. However, it’s up to companies like Samsung to respond to Apple’s “bullying” technique and develop new unique features that won’t infringe on Apple’s patents. As a result of this case, software in the short run will harder to develop, but over the long run, competitors will be forced to develop new ways (Ante, Wall Street Journal).
The Apple v. Samsung case opens up the question about whether the proliferation of software patents helps or hinders the industry. Experts can be divided, offering contrasting views. On August 26th 2012, after the verdict, Nick Wingfield wrote about the arguments that overly broad patents can easily monopolize the market. One of Samsung’s defense claims was that “many of Apple’s patents were invalid because of earlier technologies that either looked or operated similarly to Apple’s products.” Bill Flora, a director at a design firm in Seattle called Tectonic, stated that the verdict “could also create a “minefield” for product designers, in which they are constantly second-guessing whether functions.” Due to basic economic principles, less competition would lead to less innovation and higher prices. People can abuse the system by patenting simple programs that, without extreme innovation, are vital to operations and further innovation. An example of this would be the “windows” function of programs, as mentioned earlier (Wingfield, 26 August 2012, NYT).
Oppositely, an August 19, 2012 article about the Apple vs. Samsung case by Nick Wingfield (written before the verdict) postulated that there were legal “incentives” to avoid litigation (such as court fees, punitive damages, and bad publicity) which would usher in a “new era” for utility patent development. The author believes that “if Apple prevails, experts believe Samsung and other rivals in the market will have a much stronger incentive to distinguish their smartphone and tablet products with unique features and designs to avoid further legal tangles.” One particular piece of evidence used in the trial was an internal memo from 2010 that stated “the iPhone set off a “crisis of design” at Samsung, J. K. Shin, Samsung’s president of mobile communications.” Samsung felt the pressure to copy, gave in to using the patents, and lost the suit. Other companies possibly felt the same pressure, but due to neither them never following through with infringement nor being investigated, it would be difficult to discover competing company’s real intentions. These threats will inevitably force people to innovate in order to avoid litigation and all associated costs. Otherwise, if a company fails to innovate and has no viable products that do not infringe upon others’ patents, the company loses money and ultimately fails to thrive (Wingfield, 19 August 2012, NYT).